2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict / Israel was right to attack Lebanon: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 122.196.39.159 (Talk); changed back to last version by Yaron Koren) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{position}} |
Latest revision as of 21:55, May 7, 2007
Position: Israel was right to attack Lebanon
This position addresses the topic 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
For this position
From 'Disproportionate' in What Moral Universe?, by Charles Krauthammer (The Washington Post, July 28, 2006) (view)
From As Israel Goes for Withdrawal, Its Enemies Go Berserk, by David Brooks (The New York Times, July 16, 2006) (view)
From Hitting targets in Gaza, Lebanon simply self-defense, by Uri Dromi (The Miami Herald, July 14, 2006) (view)
"If President Bush doesn't succumb to world opinion, Israel will win, soon, a decisive victory. And then world opinion will change." |
From Advocates of 'proportion' are just unbalanced, by Mark Steyn (Chicago Sun-Times, August 6, 2006) (view)
"But now the ceasefire is a catastrophe for Israel to harvest, and Lebanon to share. And it was Israel's fault. Not for trying to destroy Hezbollah, but for failing to do so." |
"The resolution adopted on a 15-to-0 vote, if implemented faithfully by all sides, would significantly reduce Hezbollah's ability to cause trouble." |
From A Month of War, by The Washington Post editorial board (The Washington Post, August 13, 2006) (view)
Against this position
From It's not only about Israel, Ms. Rice, by Rami G. Khouri (International Herald Tribune, July 25, 2006) (view)
From Stop laughing, it's US policy that's the joke, by Mike Carlton (The Sydney Morning Herald, July 22, 2006) (view)
From Lebanon and the unlearned lessons of Iraq, by Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune, August 3, 2006) (view)
Mixed on this position
From 'Back Off, Israel,' Doesn't Cut It, by Jonathan Chait (Los Angeles Times, August 6, 2006) (view)